# Thread: Quantum Mechanics, Cause and Effect

1. ## Quantum Mechanics, Cause and Effect

Quantum Mechanics gives us our most accurate facts.

And perhaps the most interesting fact is that there is no cause.

Of course we have the illusion of cause but quantum mechanics makes it crystal clear there is no cause.

And so there is no need for a First Cause.

And most things we take for granted are illusions, such as astrology and mbti, and the ability of pilots to fly by the seat of their pants in cloud or at night - yes, all illusions.

But what is amazing is that our minds take so long to catch up with reality, that we live by illusions.

2. I wouldn't have taken you for a fan of this:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objective reality is real. I want to throw small rocks at anyone who believes that it isn't.

(This doesn't mean that I claim to know what objective reality is.)

3. Originally Posted by msg_v2
I wouldn't have taken you for a fan of this:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objective reality is real. I want to throw small rocks at anyone who believes that it isn't.

(This doesn't mean that I claim to know what objective reality is.)
Quantum Mechanics does tell us what objective reality is. And it also tells us objective reality is so very different from subjective reality.

So we are living in time when subjective reality and objective reality are bifurcated. We live in time when we can't trust our senses or our ideas.

And we have the illusion that if we all share the same subjective reality, we won't even notice the difference from objective reality.

So subjective reality has now become a kind of protection racket, in that, you protect my subjective reality and I will protect your subjective reality, and objective reality can go hang.

4. Originally Posted by Mole

So subjective reality has now become a kind of protection racket, in that, you protect my subjective reality and I will protect your subjective reality, and objective reality can go hang.
Ah, well, screw that mentality.

5. Yes. I think the most important thing it has to teach us is to cease the presupposition of existence with rationality.

But, the numbers game is a hard one to quit.

I thought I recalled you blasting new-age quantum mumbo jumbo.

6. @Mole : while I sympathize with most of what you wrote, putting astrology on the same level as MBTI is ludicrous. MBTI is still measurable to some degree and it follows emperical rules. Astrology does not.

7. Originally Posted by meowington
@Mole : while I sympathize with most of what you wrote, putting astrology on the same level as MBTI is ludicrous. MBTI is still measurable to some degree and it follows emperical rules. Astrology does not.
C'mon, mbti was plagiarised from the book, Psychological Types, by Carl Jung who wrote that, Psychological Types, is based on no empirical evidence.

And Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers had no qualifictions or training in psychometrics and introduced no empirical evidence into mbti.

But worse, mbti is used in exactly the same way astrology is used - the same psychological tricks, the same tropes, and the same gullible audience.

8. Originally Posted by sunyata
Yes. I think the most important thing it has to teach us is to cease the presupposition of existence with rationality.

But, the numbers game is a hard one to quit.

I thought I recalled you blasting new-age quantum mumbo jumbo.
Of course Quantum Mechanics is based on a rigourous branch of mathematics called Statistics, and is accurate in the physical world to ten decimal places and counting.

So Quantum Mechanics is a triumph of rationality and corresponds with exquisite accuracy with actual existence.

And just as Mary Baker Eddy co-opted the status of science, but not the rationality of science, in the 19th century, to form the religion called, Christian Science, so New Age gurus co-opt the status of Quantum Mechanics, without understanding the mathematics or even the conclusions of Quantum Mechanics.

And in the same way we use mbti without understanding Psychometrics.

9. Originally Posted by Mole
C'mon, mbti was plagiarised from the book, Psychological Types, by Carl Jung who wrote that, Psychological Types, is based on no empirical evidence.

And Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers had no qualifictions or training in psychometrics and introduced no empirical evidence into mbti.

But worse, mbti is used in exactly the same way astrology is used - the same psychological tricks, the same tropes, and the same gullible audience.
ok point taken. I didn't say it was built on PhD's, but emperical evidence. But yeah, I see how even that probably doesn't stand.
Still, comparing it to astrology is doing it injustice. All of mbti is up for debate, but personally I can't help but think that concepts like intuïtion vs sensing are very real.

10. I don't remember much quantum. Is this based on the uncertainty principle?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•